international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 13421348

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Technical Communication

Syngas production from catalytic gasification of

waste polyethylene: Influence of temperature on gas yield
and composition
Maoyun He, Bo Xiao*, Zhiquan Hu, Shiming Liu, Xianjun Guo, Siyi Luo
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China

article info

abstract

Article history:

The catalytic steam gasification of waste polyethylene (PE) from municipal solid waste

Received 28 November 2008

(MSW) to produce syngas (H2 CO) with NiO/g-Al2O3 as catalyst in a bench-scale down-

Accepted 5 December 2008

stream fixed bed reactor was investigated. The influence of the reactor temperature on the

Available online 1 January 2009

gas yield, gas composition, steam decomposition, low heating value (LHV), cold gas efficiency and carbon conversion efficiency was investigated at the temperature range of 700

Keywords:

900  C, with a steam to waste polyethylene ratio of 1.33. Over the ranges of experimental

Syngas

conditions examined, NiO/g-Al2O3 catalyst revealed better catalytic performance as a view

Hydrogen

of increasing product gas yield and of decreasing char and liquid yields in the presence of

Waste polyethylene

steam. Higher temperature resulted in more H2 and CO production, higher carbon

PE

conversion efficiency and product gas yield. The highest syngas (H2 CO) content of

Municipal solid waste

64.35 mol%, the highest H2 content of 36.98 mol%, and the highest CO content of

Steam gasification

27.37 mol%, were achieved at the highest temperature level of 900  C. Syngas produced

Fixed bed reactor

with a H2/CO molar ratio in the range of 0.831.35, was highly desirable as feedstock for

Nickel

FischerTropsch synthesis for the production of transportation fuels.

Catalyst

2008 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.

1.

Introduction

The amount of plastic wastes produced is growing year by

year and the fraction of plastics making up municipal solid
wastes (MSW) and refuse derived fuels (RDF) is also increasing
progressively in the world. The disposal of used plastics has
become a serious problem. Today, only a small percentage of
plastic waste is recycled and disposal is mainly by landfill or
incineration, both associated with environmental problems
[1]. Being derivatives of non-renewable raw materials such as
petroleum, plastics produce high energetic value wastes,
abundant and relatively easy to recover in the MSW [2].

There has recently been a growing interest in plastics

recycling because of serious environmental problems caused
by waste plastics as well as their potential for use as
resources. Plastics can be recycled by three different methods:
mechanical recycling, chemical recycling (otherwise termed
feedstock recycling or tertiary recycling) and energy recovery
[3]. Chemical recycling method, which converts waste plastics
to useful hydrocarbons, has been recognized as a promising
approach. Among the different chemical recycling techniques, gasification process appears to be an interesting
option in the development of full scale processes for the
upgrading of solid wastes to more usable and energy dense

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hecaijia@yahoo.com.cn (B. Xiao).
0360-3199/$ see front matter 2008 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.12.023

1343

international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 13421348

materials, such as gas fuel and or fuel oil, or high value feed
stocks for the chemical industry, given that it allows for the
simultaneous feed of a variety of wastes of polymeric nature
(tyres, biomass, plastics and so forth) in order to upgrade them
together. Furthermore, different operating strategies may be
established in order for the products obtained to be used in
different applications. Thus, there are two interesting variables in these strategies: operating temperature (thermal
gasification) and the use of catalysts (catalytic gasification) [1].
The yield and composition of gasification products (gas,
liquid, and char) are highly dependent on the operating
parameters, especially the process temperature and catalysts.
Gasification reaction takes place on the surface of solid catalysts. For this process, usually nickel supported catalysts are
used. Nickel supported catalysts are promising due to its high
effectiveness in tar removal and production of high yields of
syngas [4], along with the added advantages of methane
reforming and water gas shift activity, allowing adjustment of
the H2/CO molar ratio of the product gas [5].
Therefore, the catalytic gasification process has been
considered to be a promising method for future energy
systems to meet environmental requirements, and provides
one of the most cost-competitive means of obtaining syngas
from renewable resources [69], which are used as feedstock
for producing hydrogen for methanol [10] and ammonia
synthesis or for fuel cell applications and hydrogen combustion engines to release its stored energy [11]. Syngas can also
be converted to liquid transportation fuels using Fischer
Tropsch synthesis [12]. Furthermore, the syngas could be
directly used in the production of electrical power in fuel cells
or by combustion in gas turbines [13].
In the present work, the waste polyethylene as an energy
resource by catalytic gasification process with steam was
investigated in a lab-scale continuously feeding fixed bed
reactor, the purpose of this study, is to determine the influence of reactor temperature and catalyst on the following:
(1) the product gas yield, (2) the product gas composition, (3)
the syngas (H2 CO) content, (4) the H2 to CO molar ratio, (5)
the lower heating value (LHV) of the product gas, (6) the carbon
conversion efficiency, and (7) the cold gas efficiency.

2.

Experimental section

2.1.

Materials

The waste polyethylene samples were taken from municipal

solid waste (MSW) collected at waste dumpsites at Huazhong
University of Science and Technology (HUST), Wuhan, China.
The samples were dried under the sun for a period of 7 days to
reduce the moisture content, then shredded into particles of
sizes of approximately 5 mm. The results of ultimate and
proximate analyses of waste polyethylene samples are listed
in Table 1.
NiO/g-Al2O3 catalyst was prepared using the aqueous
solution of Ni(NO3)2$6H2O (SCRC, Shanghai) and CO(NH2)2
(SCRC, Shanghai) and porous g-Al2O3 support substrates in
a diameter of w3 mm (SBET 120.2 m2/g, SCRC, Shanghai) by
depositionprecipitation (DP) method described in our
previous study [14]. The loading amount of NiO was w10 wt%.

Table 1 Ultimate and proximate analyses of waste

polyethylene samples.
Moisture content (wt%)
Proximate analysis (wt%, dry basis)
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Ash
Ultimate analysis (wt%, dry basis)
C
H
O
N
S
Low heating value
Apparent density

0.02
99.85
0
0.15
85.81
13.86
0
0.12
0.06
38 036 kJ/kg
570.5 kg/m3

The surface area, pore volume and average pore diameter

were 108.5 m2/g, 0.341 ml/g and 12.2 nm, respectively.

2.2.

Apparatus and procedures

A process flow diagram of catalytic gasification process is

shown schematically in Fig. 1. In this process, the catalytic
gasification of waste polyethylene was conducted on a benchscale fixed bed reactor using NiO/g-Al2O3 as catalyst. The
sample was loaded in a feedstock hopper with a maximum
capacity of 2 L, which was fitted with an air-tight closure
system; during the experiments, the material was continuously fed into the reactor by means of a continuous screwdriver device, whose rotation was ruled by an inverter. The
catalytic gasification system consists essentially of a 0Cr25Ni20
stainless tube (i.d. 81 mm, o.d. 89 mm, height 1400 mm), a gas
cleaning section containing a cyclone solid collector and a fiber
wool filter, a cooling system for the separation of water and
condensable organic vapors (tar), and various gas measurement devices. The stainless tube reactor was electrically
heated with 10  C/min to reaction temperature. In this study,
the reaction temperature was controlled from 700 to 900  C in
50  C increments, and the operating pressure in the reactor was
close to the atmospheric pressure. Prior to each test, catalyst
was held in the stainless tube, and then a porous ceramic of
80 mm in diameter and 10 mm in thickness was placed on the
catalyst for collecting the char from waste polyethylene gasification and uniform distribution of gas through the catalyst
bed. During the experiments, the saturated steam of 109.6  C
and 141.3 kPa is produced in a steam generator.
The procedure for a typical steam catalytic gasification
experiment is described below. Prior to each experiment, 1 kg
of supported catalysts NiO/g-Al2O3 was held in the stainless
tube, the shredded sample was loaded in a hopper. When the
desired temperature was reached, waste polyethylene feedstock and steam were continuously fed into the gasifier
simultaneously with the rates of 0.3 kg/h and 0.4 kg/h,
respectively. The solid char residue was mostly collected on
the porous ceramic, the produced gas and fine particles
passed through the cyclone and fiber wool filter, thereby the
fine particles were removed. The condensable matter was
quenched as the gas passed through the water condenser.
Subsequently, the product gas was dried after entering into
a gas meter and a gas dryer. At last heating of the furnace

1344

international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 13421348

Fig. 1 Flowchart of experimental apparatus. 1. steam generator, 2. valve, 3. piezometer, 4. steam flow meter, 5. motor,
6. screw feeder, 7. hopper, 8. fixed bed gasifier, 9. porous ceramic, 10. catalyst, 11. electric furnaces, 12. temperature
controller, 13. cyclone, 14. condenser, 15. flask, 16. filter, 17. gas meter, 18. silica gel, 19. air pump, 20. gas sample bag.

stopped, the steam generator was turned off, and the reactor
was cooled to the ambient temperature.
After every experiment, the char residues collected on the
porous ceramic inside the tube and in the cyclone were
weighed to determine the amount of unconverted solid char.
The weight of liquid produced in the condenser was recorded.
The gas produced was combusted after sampling and analysis. In general, it took 10 min for the experiment to reach
a stable state, to ensure the reliability of test data, each
experiment was repeated two times, and the results were in
good agreement. The data reported in this paper are average
values of two times.

2.3.

Method of sampling and analysis

The low heating value of the waste polyethylene samples was

estimated using a bomb calorimeter (6300, Parr Inc.) with
accuracy of <0.15%.
Ultimate analysis of the waste polyethylene samples was
obtained with a CHNS analyzer (Vario Micro cube, Elementar).
Such analysis gives the weight percent of carbon, hydrogen,
nitrogen, and sulfur in the samples simultaneously, and the
weight percent of oxygen is determined by difference. A TA
Instruments system (TGA 2000, Las Navas) was used to obtain
proximate analysis of the waste polyethylene samples (that is,
moisture, volatile matter, fixed carbon, and ash content of the
material).
X-ray diffraction (XRD) (XPert PRO, PANalytical B.V.)
measurements of NiO/g-Al2O3 catalysts were carried out to
determine main components and investigate the catalytic
performance before and after the experiment, which
employed Cu KR radiation (l 0.154056 nm). The X-ray tube
voltage and current were 40 kV and 40 mA, respectively. The

sample was scanned from 10 to 90 (2q) with a scanning rate
of 4 /min. Furthermore, the surface area, pore volume and
average pore diameter of the catalysts were determined using
an accelerated surface area porosimetry (ASAP 2010, Micrometrics) instrument, which used liquid nitrogen at 77 K, was
applied to measure the BET surface area of catalysts.
The product gas volume was measured using a gas meter
(J1.6-II, Wuhan Apollo), and sampled discontinuously using
gas bags at regular time intervals. Gas composition analysis
was conducted off-line with a dual channel micro-gas chromatography (Micro-GC 3000A, Agilent) that was able to
provide precise analysis of the principal gas components (H2,
CO, CO2, CH4, C2H4 and C2H6). The instrument was equipped
with TCD and FID detectors, and the carrier gas was helium in
all analyses.

2.4.

Methods of data processing

The lower heating value (LHV) of syngas is calculated by,

LHV MJ=N m3 CO  126:36 H2  107:98 CH4  358:18
C2 H2  56:002 C2 H4  59:036 C2 H6
 63:772=1000
where, CO, H2, CH4, C2H4 and C2H6 are the molar percentages
of components of the product gas, respectively.
The carbon conversion efficiency is calculated by,
Xc %

12YCO% CO2 % CH4 % 2  C2 H4 % 2  C2 H6 %

22:4  C%
 100%

where, Y is the product gas yield (N m3/kg), C% is the mass

percentage of carbon in ultimate analysis of waste

1345

international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 13421348

polyethylene feedstock, and the other symbols are the molar

percentage of components of the product gas.
Cold gas efficiency is calculated by,
Egas %

LHVgas  Y
 100%
LHVfeed

where, Y is the product gas yield (N m3/kg), LHVgas is the lower

heating value (MJ/N m3) of the product gas, LHVfeed is the
lower heating value (MJ/kg)of the waste polyethylene
feedstock.
Steam decomposition is calculated by,
SD%
1000YH2 % 2  CH4 % 2  C2 H4 % 3  C2 H6 %  18=22:4
W1 W2
 100%

where, W1 is steam flow rate and W2 represents the total

moisture content in the waste polyethylene feedstock.

CHx*n OH* / CO (x 1)/2H2 (n 1)*

(7)

CHx*n O* / CO x/2H2 (n 1)*

(8)

*: represents active sites; *2: represents adsorption sites

acting at the same time and sup: indicates adsorption sites on
support surface.
Therefore, catalytic steam gasification process can be
divided into two steps. The first step is a thermochemical
decomposition of polyethylene with production of tar, char
and volatiles, this step namely primary pyrolysis, could
perform at a lower temperature w300  C, and lasts until
a temperature of 700  C or even higher. The second step
includes reactions of CO, CO2, H2 and H2O with the hydrocarbon gases and carbon in waste polyethylene feedstock,
thereby producing gaseous products. The catalytic steam
gasification process might be described by the following
reactions using (CH2)n as polyethylene (PE).
(CH2)n nH2O 2nH2 nCO (DH298 K > 0)

3.

(9)

Results and discussion

3.1.
Mechanism of catalytic steam gasification of waste
polyethylene
With the purpose of in-depth exploration and confirmation of
catalytic gasification process, several mechanisms were
considered together [15], hydrocarbon molecules are adsorbed
on a dual site on catalyst surface where nickel selectively attacks
terminal carbon of the chain by means of successive a-scission
steps. Water adsorbs preferentially on the catalysts support,
that must be formulated to allow mobility for oxygen species
(which originate from water dissociation) adsorbed on its
surface, and the steam gasification reaction takes place, preferentially, at the metalsupport interface. The C1 species formed
can react with oxygen species coming from water adsorption
dissociation and spill-over from support to nickel active sites
[16], or remain adsorbed on the active sites where they would be
transformed according to one of the possible carbon formation
routes. We can propose this mechanism as follows:
(1) Hydrocarbon adsorptiondissociation:
CnH2n 2* / CnHz*2 (2n  z)/2H2

(1)

CCa-scission:
CnHz*2 n* / Cn1Hz0 *2 CHx*n

(2)

(2) Steam adsorptiondissociation:

H2O sup / H2Osup

(3)

H2Osup / OHsup Hsup / Osup H2 sup

(4)

(3) Spill-over of oxygen species:

Hsup * / OH* sup

(5)

Osup * / O* sup

(6)

C CO2 / 2CO 162.4 MJ/kmol

(10)

C H2O / CO H2 131.3 MJ/kmol

(11)

H2O CO / H2 CO2  41.2 MJ/kmol

(12)

CH4 H2O / CO 3H2 206.3 MJ/kmol

(13)

Tar n1H2O / n2CO2 n3H2 (DH298

(14)

> 0)

Therefore, the purpose of using catalyst includes:

(1) cracking of tar; (2) to increase polyethylene gasification
efficiency; (3) to accelerate gasification reactions in order to
increase product gas yield and decrease liquid and char yields.
During catalytic gasification process of waste polyethylene,
there exist significant amounts of tars in the product gas and
produced liquid which can be eliminated by high-temperature
thermal decomposition or by the use of a catalyst (catalytic
gasification). The presence of catalyst can increase the reaction rate of the gas fraction with char and/or can participate in
the secondary reactions liquid cracking.

3.2.

NiO/g-Al2O3 catalysts activity

NiO/g-Al2O3 catalysts were used in steam gasification

processes of waste polyethylene to enhance the yield and
quality of product gas and decrease tar yield by cracking and
reforming the high molecular weight organic components
with the introduction of steam, the catalytic activity of Nibased catalysts were extensively investigated in different
reactors such as fixed bed [15] and fluidized bed reactors [17],
but few literatures have been found on catalytic behaviors of
Ni-based catalysts in the steam gasification of waste
polyethylene.

1346

international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 13421348

In Fig. 2, H2, CO, CO2, CH4, C2H4 and C2H6 contents are
represented for the catalytic and non-catalytic pyrolysis and
gasification. In contrast, there was a great difference between
pyrolysis (run 1) and steam gasification (run 3), it was
concluded that the introduction of steam increased H2, and
CO contents, while CO2, CH4, C2H4 and C2H6 contents
decreased, which was caused by the participation of the
steam in gas-phase reactions and gasification of tar and char.
NiO/g-Al2O3 catalysts improved the quality of the product
gas, the results of catalytic steam gasification (run 4) were
compared with those of catalytic pyrolysis (run 2), a crucial
increase of 66.50% in H2 content and 78.98% in CO2 content as
well as a remarkable decrease of CO, CH4, C2H4 and C2H6
contents were achieved, which attributed to water gas shift
reaction and steam reforming of hydrocarbon reactions. It
was concluded that the presence of steam increased the H2
and CO2 contents, and decreased CO, CH4, C2H4 and C2H6
contents.
In the presence of steam, if the results of catalytic steam
gasification (run 4) were compared with steam gasification
(run 3), the presence of the NiO/g-Al2O3 catalysts can increase
H2 content and CO2 content, while CO, CH4, C2H4 and C2H6
contents diminished. In the catalytic process (runs 4 and 2) the
effects originated by the steam were greater than those of the
non-catalytic process (runs 1 and 3) in agreement with Garcia
et al.s conclusions [17].

3.3.

Lifetime test of NiO/g-Al2O3 catalysts

NiO/g-Al2O3 catalysts revealed better catalytic performance in

the presence of steam, thus, the catalysts must also be proved
to have a long lifetime for the gasification process. Deactivation of NiO/g-Al2O3 catalysts could be due to the dust, sulfur,
and carbon deposition (mainly from tar). The sulfur content
was neglected in waste polyethylene and in the product gas.
Therefore, the main purpose of the lifetime test was to indicate the state of dust and coke deactivation [18].
Fig. 3 shows gas composition profile of H2, CO, CO2, CH4,
CH4 and C2H6 with reaction time at a temperature of 900  C.
H2, CO, CO2, CH4, CH4 and C2H6 contents remained almost
constant throughout the experiment with reaction time.

Fig. 3 Gas composition versus reaction time of NiO/gAl2O3 catalysts.

These results indicated that nearly no deactivation took place

under these operating conditions, NiO/g-Al2O3 catalysts
revealed good catalytic performance. This can be explained by
the fact that, at a higher temperature, the carbon deposited on
the surface of NiO/g-Al2O3 catalysts was easier to be removed
through reacting with steam. Therefore the appearance of
steam helps to prevent NiO/g-Al2O3 catalysts from fast deactivation caused by carbon deposition, which was in agreement
with Lv et al.s conclusions [18].

3.4.
Material balance calculations and product
distribution
The details of the materials balance calculation at different
reactor temperatures are presented in Table 2. The overall
material balance had a closure of w94.40%. The gas produced
reached 0.436 kg/h. The char produced was 0.038 kg/h. The
liquid produced amounted to 0.187 kg/h. Table 3 shows the
product distribution (gas, tar and char) at different reactor
temperatures by catalytic steam gasification of waste polyethylene with NiO/g-Al2O3 catalysts. The data indicated that
material balance calculations exceed 100% due to the introduction of steam during the gasification process. With the
temperature increasing from 700 to 900  C, the char decreased
gradually from 19.15% to 12.65%, and the tar decreased gradually from 12.94% to 2.62%, while gas increased drastically
from 94.52% to 145.23%.

Table 2 Overall material balance.

In (kg/h)
Feedstock
Steam
Total

Fig. 2 Gas compositon in steam gasification and pyrolysis

for non-catalytic and catalytic processes.

Out (kg/h)
0.3
0.4
0.7

Gas
Liquid
Char
Total

0.436
0.187
0.038
0.691

Overall closure 94.40%; overall closure % (gas liquid char)/

(feedstock steam)  100%, reactor temperature 900  C.

1347

international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 13421348

Table 3 Influence of reactor temperature on product distribution and gas characterization.

Temperature ( C)
Product distribution (wt%)
Gas
Tar
Char
Gas composition (mol%, dry basis)
H2
CO
CO2
CH4
C2H4
C2H6
Gas characterization
Syngas (H2 CO) (mol%, dry basis)
H2/CO (mol/mol)
LHV (MJ/N m3)
Steam decomposition (%)
Carbon conversion
efficiency (wt%)
Cold gas efficiency (%)
Product gas yield (N m3/kg)

700

750

800

850

900

94.52
12.94
19.15

108.25
8.51
15.14

118.05
5.11
13.41

132.40
3.57
12.08

145.23
2.62
12.65

16.92
20.33
35.28
21.44
4.01
2.02

21.31
21.53
32.46
18.91
3.86
1.93

28.94
22.83
27.91
14.87
3.31
2.14

34.96
25.87
21.84
10.97
3.45
2.91

36.98
27.37
20.78
9.94
2.84
2.09

37.25
0.83
12.44
54.31
67.87

42.84
0.99
12.15
57.34
69.09

51.77
1.27
11.67
63.53
70.22

60.83
1.35
11.36
79.11
80.68

64.35
1.35
11.31
84.59
86.54

39.90
1.22

41.83
1.31

45.09
1.47

54.07
1.81

60.67
2.04

Feedstock 0.3 kg/h; steam 0.4 kg/h.

The increase of gas was mainly attributed to the decomposition of char and the secondary reaction of the tar vapor as
temperature increased, more carbon and steam can be converted into gas through Eqs. (10), (11) and (14), therefore,
carbon conversion efficiency and steam decomposition
increased, accordingly char decreased markedly. This variation was probably dependent on the more favorable thermal
cracking and steam reforming reactions at higher temperatures, which resulted in the secondary cracking reactions into
the gas fraction. Subsequently, in the presence of catalyst,
higher temperature favored the carbon conversion efficiency,
tar decomposition and char further gasification with steam.

3.5.

Influence of reactor temperature

The composition of the gas components obtained at different

temperatures is presented in Table 3. It indicates that the
main components are H2, CO, CO2, CH4 and small quantities of
low molecular hydrocarbons, such as C2H4 and C2H6.
According to Le Chateliers principle, higher temperatures
favor the reactants in exothermic reactions and favor the
products in endothermic reactions. Water gas shift reaction
(Eq. (12)) is exothermic and thus less important at higher
temperature. The main reactions (Eqs. (9)(11), (13) and (14))
are endothermic strengthened by increasing temperature.
Therefore, the reactor temperature was crucial for the overall
catalytic gasification process. As shown in Table 3, higher
temperatures significantly resulted in higher H2 and CO
contents. It can be concluded that Boudouard reactions (Eq.
(10)), carbon gasification reaction (Eq. (11)), together with the
secondary cracking reactions of tar (Eq. (14)), were the main
factors responsible for the increase in H2 and CO contents. H2
content almost doubled from 16.92% to 36.98%, CO content
increased from 20.33% to 27.37%, while CO2 content decreased
from 35.28% down to 20.78%. Methane decomposition (Eq.
(13)) was favored at higher temperature, which accounted for

a significant decrease from 21.44% down to 9.94% in CH4

content as temperature increased. C2H4 and C2H6 contents did
not change much, and remained w3% and w2%. It was
concluded that temperature had strong influence on the
decomposition of CH4, which agreed with Turn et al. [19],
higher temperature provided more favorable conditions for
thermal cracking and steam reforming, so steam decomposition and product gas yield increased as shown in Table 3,
which contributed to the increases of cold gas efficiency and
carbon conversion efficiency due to more gas formation and
more waste polyethylene feedstock conversion during the
catalytic gasification process.
With respect to the different gas compositions, as shown in
Table 3, the content of syngas increased from 37.25% to
64.35%. Meanwhile, the increase of H2 content was greater
than that of CO content, thus H2 to CO ratio (H2/CO) in the
syngas slowly increased from 0.83 to 1.35 over the range of
temperature from 700  C to 900  C, this kind of syngas was
highly desirable as feedstock for FischerTropsch synthesis
for the production of transportation fuels [20].
Furthermore, the lower heating value (LHV) of syngas
decreased from 12.44 MJ/N m3 to 11.31 MJ/N m3, when the
reactor temperature increased from 700  C to 900  C. It was
because methane had highest heating value in syngas, the
sharp decrease of methane content led to a decrease of the
lower heating value (LHV) of syngas.

4.

Conclusions

In the present work, the steam gasification of waste polyethylene using NiO/g-Al2O3 as catalyst into syngas, was performed at atmospheric pressure in a fixed bed reactor over the
temperature range of 700900  C. In a series of trials, the
influence of reactor temperature on the gas yield, gas
composition, steam decomposition, low heating value (LHV),

1348

international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 13421348

cold gas efficiency and carbon conversion efficiency was

investigated. The data showed that NiO/g-Al2O3 is an active
catalyst for steam gasification of waste polyethylene, the
introduction of steam can enhance the product gas yield and
accelerate the conversion of waste polyethylene.
Temperature played a great role on the gas yield and
composition. A higher temperature resulted in a higher
conversion of waste polyethylene into syngas with a significant increase of H2 content. With temperature increasing
from 700 to 900  C, the yield of char and tar decreased while
product gas yield increased. Furthermore, the H2/CO mol ratio,
product gas yield and steam decomposition increased, while
LHV of syngas decreased. In the presence of steam, NiO/gAl2O3 is active for increasing H2 content and lowering the rate
of char and tar formation. The lifetime test of 3 h exhibited no
deactivation at the temperature of 900  C.
The results indicated that there is a strong potential for
producing syngas from waste polyethylene by a simple steam
gasification process with NiO/g-Al2O3 as catalyst. Moreover,
this paper aims to convert waste polyethylene from municipal
solid waste (MSW) to useful and valuable syngas.

Acknowledgment
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support
received from the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (No. 20876066), Hubei Province Scientific and Technological Project Foundation (No. 2007AA204B01) and Hubei
Province Transformation Foundation of Scientific and Technological Achievements in Agriculture (No. 2008GB2D100208).
The authors would also like to thank the Analytical and Test
Center of Huazhong University of Science and Technology for
carrying out the ultimate analysis of waste polyethylene
simples.

references

[1] Elordi G, Lopez G, Olazar M, Aguado R, Bilbao J. Product

distribution modelling in the thermal pyrolysis of high
density polyethylene. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2007;
144:70814.
[2] Mastral JF, Berrueco C, Ceamanos J. Theoretical prediction of
product distribution of the pyrolysis of high density
polyethylene. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis
2007;80:42738.
[3] Takuma K, Uemichi Y, Ayame A. Product distribution from
catalytic degradation of polyethylene over H-gallosilicate.
Applied Catalysis A: General 2000;192:27380.
[4] Li JF, Yan R, Xiao B, Liang DT, Du LJ. Development of nanoNiO/Al2O3 catalyst to be used for tar removal in biomass
gasification. Environmental Science & Technology 2008;42:
62249.

[5] Swierczynski D, Libs S, Courson C, Kiennemann A. Steam

reforming of tar from a biomass gasification process over
Ni/Olivine catalyst using toluene as a model compound.
Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 2007;74:21122.
[6] He MY, Hu ZQ, Xiao B, Li JF, Guo XJ, Luo SY, et al. Hydrogenrich gas from catalytic steam gasification of municipal solid
waste (MSW): influence of catalyst and temperature on yield
and product composition. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 2009;34:195203.
[7] Guo XJ, Xiao B, Zhang XL, Luo SY, He MY. Experimental study
on airsteam gasification of biomass micron fuel (BMF) in
a cyclone gasifier. Bioresource Technology 2009;100:11036.
[8] Guo XJ, Xiao B, Hu ZQ, Luo SY, He MY. Gasification
characteristics of biomass micron fuel (BMF)-study on steam
gasification for hydrogen-rich gas products. Fresenius
Environmental Bulletin 2008;17:3104.
[9] Luo SY, Xiao B, Guo XJ, Hu ZQ, Liu SM, He MY. Hydrogen-rich
gas from catalytic steam gasification of biomass in a fixed
bed reactor: influence of particle size on gasification
performance. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2009;
34(3):12604.
[10] Weil S, Hamel S, Krumm W. Hydrogen energy from
coupledwaste gasification and cement productionda
thermochemical concept study. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 2006;31:167489.
[11] Jankhah S, Abatzoglou N, Gitzhofer F. Thermal and catalytic
dry reforming and cracking of ethanol for hydrogen and
carbon nanofilamentsproduction. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 2008;3:476979.
[12] Zhang Y, Nagamori S, Hinchiranan S, Vitidsant T, Tsubaki N.
Promotional effects of Al2O3 addition to Co/SiO2 catalysts for
FischerTropsch synthesis. Energy & Fuels 2006;20:41721.
[13] Chaudhari ST, Dalai AK, Bakhshi NN. Production of hydrogen
and/or syngas (H2 CO) via steam gasification of biomassderived chars. Energy & Fuels 2003;17:10627.
[14] Li JF, Yan R, Xiao B, Liang DT, Lee DH. Preparation of nanoNiO particles and evaluation of their catalytic activity in
pyrolyzing biomass components. Energy & Fuels 2008;22:
1623.
[15] Melo F, Morlanes N. Synthesis, characterization and catalytic
behaviour of NiMgAl mixed oxides as catalysts for hydrogen
production by naphtha steam reforming. Catalysis Today
2008;133135:38393.
[16] Rostrup-Nielsen JR, Sehested J, Nrskov JK. Hydrogen and
synthesis gas by steam and CO2 reforming. Advances in
Catalysis 2002;47:6570.
[17] Garcia L, Salvador ML, Arauzo J, Bilbao R. Catalytic steam
gasification of pine sawdust: effect of catalyst weight/
biomass flow rate and steam/biomass ratios on gas
production and composition. Energy & Fuels 1999;13:8519.
[18] Lv PM, Chang J, Wang TJ, Fu Y, Chen Y, Zhu JX. Hydrogen-rich
gas production from biomass catalytic gasification. Energy &
Fuels 2004;18:22833.
[19] Turn S, Kinoshita C, Zhang Z, Ishimura D, Zhou J. An
experimental investigation of hydrogen production from
biomass gasification. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1998;23:6418.
[20] Galvagno S, Casu S, Casciaro G, Martino M, Russo A,
Portofino S. Steam gasification of refuse-derived fuel (RDF):
influence of process temperature on yield and product
composition. Energy & Fuels 2006;20:22848.